![]() |
|
Help me welcome Kirstin Downey, author of The Woman Behind the New Deal: The Life of Frances Perkins, FDR’s Secretary of Labor and His Moral Conscience. Kirstin will be online this hour.
Imagine this: Former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao witnesses a terrifying spectacle of young women leaping to their deaths from the windows of a burning building where they worked—their only means of escape. Would this event have transformed Chao into someone who saw the nation’s Labor Department as serving workers, not corporations?
In 1911, the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, in which 146 young women died, proved to be a transformative experience for one woman standing below in the crowd: Frances Perkins. As a social worker, the future labor secretary already was deeply involved in aiding the less fortunate. But after she witnessed the thin bodies of young immigrant women plunging to their deaths because of the greed of their employer who locked the escape doors of the sweatshop, Perkins re-dedicated her vision of justice toward America’s working people.
We can all take bets on whether Chao would have translated such a catastrophe into support for workers—or for laws to better cover for murderous managers. But because of a great new book on Perkins by author Kirstin Downey, we have keen insight into the driving forces behind Perkins, the nation’s first female Cabinet secretary.
The Woman Behind the New Deal: The Life of Frances Perkins, FDR’s Secretary of Labor and His Moral Conscience includes Perkins’ best-known achievements, such as the Social Security Act enacted in 1935—which gave us Social Security, unemployment insurance and the system that became Aid to Dependent Children, which was originally designed to help mothers raising their children alone.
Then in 1938 there was the Fair Labor Standards Act that set a 40-hour workweek to prevent workers from getting broken down by exhaustion, a minimum wage that ensured they would receive a certain level of compensation, a ban on child labor and the creation of overtime pay for workers asked to work long hours.
Perkins wasn’t from the labor movement, but she was a strong supporter of the idea that workers need to organize into unions so they can negotiate better wages and working conditions.
She also was a pivotal figure in creating the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration—but what is less known is that Perkins saved thousands of people from the Nazis.
Back then, the Immigration Department was part of the Labor Department, and she brought tens of thousands of immigrants to the United States to get them away from the Nazis before most Americans knew the dangers they faced over there. Why did she know so many people were in danger? It’s because Hitler started killing and imprisoning labor leaders right from the start, in 1933. Labor leaders here knew what was coming, and they told Frances.
But Downey’s exploration of Perkins goes beyond the back and forth of policymaking to give us a deep sense of what it was like to be the first woman Cabinet member at a time when the male-dominated upper echelons of government were hostile to women in power. As Downey, a Washington Post reporter, writes:
Some male Labor Department staffers threatened to resign rather than report to a woman.
Perkins was ready for the challenge. She already had faced much hostility throughout her career. In the 1920s, she braved a vicious mob of Ku Klux Klansmen at a Missouri campaign rally for Catholic presidential candidate Al Smith.
Perkins also was politically savvy. Rather than take her male peers head on, she worked behind the scenes, building support for programs deemed unthinkable only months earlier. She also knew how to shape those programs for public acceptance. When Social Security was being designed, she rejected systems of other countries in which government funding was the main support of senior citizens. Instead, as Downey points out:
She looked to the insurance model, in which people pay in when they are employed, so that they can get money back when they are not.
Abe Shulsky, a former Defense Department official, knew Perkins. Shulsky was in the audience here for a recent book talk by Downey at the AFL-CIO and said that Perkins
felt a duty to take care of people, a real commitment to helping people as a vocation. She had a great mixture of idealism and realism in politics. She knew how to make deals to get this vote and that vote, but she never lost her moral compass.
Her moral compass explains a lot about Frances Perkins. As Downey asked at the book talk: “Why did she do all that she did?”
It wasn’t for riches. She ended up living in a small dormitory room. She didn’t get a lot of glory or fame by the time she died. And she suffered very badly for what she’d done. She was ridiculed and stigmatized, and even suffered an impeachment attempt.
The real answer, according to Downey, was in something Perkins wrote to Justice Felix Frankfurter, just as she was leaving office:
I came to work for God, FDR and the millions of forgotten, plain common working men.
Was Frances Perkins the unsung hero behind the New Deal? Downey makes a good case for it. But you decide.
(We have signed copies of The Woman Behind the New Deal at the AFL-CIO Union Shop Online.) Order while they last.




40 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Welcome, Kirstin:
Let me start out with a question about Perkins and Social Security. The Frances Townsend movement was crucial supplying grassroots agitation for passage of a Social Security Act. Millions of cards and letters were sent to DC on the issue through this movement. How did Perkins’s role fit into this grassroots momentum?
welcome kirstin. do you think we have a frances perkins type in the obama administration – a person who is looking out for the millions of forgotten, plain common working men?
Hi, Kristin
Welcome!
Sounds like a great book. Is it just my ignorance, or is this a bit of forgotten history?
FunnyDiva
Welcome to Firedoglake!
Welcome and thanks for the book. The appeal of this heroine is obvious. Where is today’s Francis Perkins? You’d think the Administration would be dominated by people like this, but instead they seem more inclined to protect banks than people.
Was she so unique? Have we really devolved that much? Or are we just not seeing what’s there?
There’s no question the Townsend movement was influential on Capitol Hill. Dr. Townsend mobilized thousands of senior-citizen activists to lobby legislators for financial relief, urging them to give big sums of money–$200 a month, in some versions–so they could survive and spread the wealth around. This movement came at a time that there was widespread awareness of the plight of the elderly.
The Great Depression had hit senior citizens especially hard. Many millions of senior citizens, after years of hard work and steady saving, were left destitute when the stock market crashed and real estate values plummeted. In addition, there were no laws against age discrimination so older workers were quickly jettisoned in favor of younger workers, so many could not go back into the workforce to recover.
Frances Perkins was able to position her proposal as the less expensive and more moderate proposal, and that helped make it more politically palatable.
Welcome to FDL this afternoon Kirstin.
I have not had the chance to read your book but I do hope that Hilda Solis can be closer to Frances Perkins as a Labor Secretary than Elaine Chao was.
Of course, since Ms Chao’s husband is the Senior Senator from Big Business, it would be difficult to find a Labor Secretary who was less on the side of Labor than Ms Chao
Yes, it’s incredible that such an influential woman has been so forgotten. But standard versions of American history frequently overlook women, and overlook progressives and overlook labor activism, and so Frances Perkins was triply stigmatized….She also hated the press, and had contempt for most reporters, and she didn’t curry favor with them. She even avoided press coverage. And as we have seen in recent years, some people spend their lives cultivating publicity and others spend their lives doing things.
It’s interesting that both Frances Perkins and Elaine Chao are graduates of Mount Holyoke, which has a fine tradition of encouraging its students to pursue lives of public service. They certainly saw their roles in different ways.
Perkins originally opposed the National Labor Relations Act (as did some union leaders).
Why did she oppose it at first?
And/or had very different ideas of what type of people made up the “public” they were serving.
FunnyDiva
We live in an age of midgets, the vacuous, the banal. Obama has taken Hoover for his model. There is no Frances Perkins out there to save us, just as there is no FDR.
Kirstin, thanks so much for your work. I’d heard of Frances Perkins, but had no idea of the depth and power of her work and advocacy. THanks for educating me about a real heroine.
Frances Perkins strongly supported the right to organize, and she helped draft the original wording that first explicitly permitted collective bargaining under the National Industrial Recovery Act, in what is called Section 7a of that bill. But she was worried that a government entity like the National Labor Relations Board could be politicized, with measures crafted that would make it harder for workers to unionize. And in fact, that has happened in many case.
I know what you mean, and I often feel that way myself. But I also find myself wondering who else is lurking out there, like Frances Perkins, doing good things but without seeking to take credit? I live in Washington DC and I see a great many public servants in the federal government and the military working long hours and with great commitment. I think we all need to take more responsibility for giving more support and encouragement to those among us who are striving for bigger, better things.
Thanks so much…I became fascinated with France Perkins after I came to Washington as a young reporter for the Washington Post, and I began to realize how hard it was to get effective and progressive legislation passed. I kept coming across her name–unemployment insurance, Social Security, welfare issues–and wanted to figure out how she had accomplished so much. The book is the result of nine years of exploration and investigation.
There may be more scope for women as senior executives, but Ms. Perkins politics and priorities seem more foreign today than they were seventy-five years ago.
Can you go a little further into what Perkins wanted to see in federal labor law to protect the right to organize? Since we’re in the thick of another fight to reform labor law with the Employee Free Choice Act, it’d be interesting know what Perkins saw as the right legal framework.
A lot of her ideas and proposal were originally viewed as ludicrously far-fetched. But remember she and FDR came into office at least four or five years into the Depression. If we have four more years of this mess, a lot of things could look different. If everyone begins losing their health insurance, for example, which isn’t so implausible, national and comprehensive health insurance will seem much more acceptable to larger numbers of people.
Welcome Kirstin,
I heard some of your remarks about Frances Perkins on an NPR Program a few weeks back. You mention regarding SSI that Perkins “looked to the insurance model, in which people pay in when they are employed, so that they can get money back when they are not.” Clearly that was a framework, but many recipients were not initially major contributors. That must have been a difficult argument to make, as well as the compulsory nature of the program, with employer contributions. Did you find that she had major opposition on these points within the Cabinet? Was there a push to keep the system “privatized” (i.e. like insurance).
Also Perkins’ work after the Triangle Shirtwaist fire led to majior health and safety standards for workers (everything from marked and accessible fire exits, daily clean up of flammable materials, alarms and sprinklers). I recall reading somewhere that Teddy Roosevelt also was impacted by that disaster and pushed, as a “progressive” political candidate greater workplace standards. Do you know if Frances Perkins every met TR, FDR’s cousin?
She wanted an explicit right to organize, but she wanted the country to proceed toward widespread unionization more slowly so that it would gain broader acceptance….The National Labor Relations Board was originally viewed as biased toward the CIO, which organized in a more radical manner, and was frequently at war with the more conservative AFL. It was good that people were unionizing, but it happened in a very chaotic atmosphere, giving ammunition to the critics of unionization….On the FECA issue, it is interesting to note that Frances Perkins said the idea of the secret ballot was pushed by an executive at General Electric, and that its promotion was really just an accident. She didn’t think the secret ballot was needed. It was just one useful way to organize. She would support measures being taken today to make it easier for workers to organize. The process has become so slow and bureaucratic that workers are fired before they succeed in getting a contract with their employers.
Thanks for the great Teddy Roosevelt question! Yes she most definitely knew Teddy Roosevelt, and I found in the National Archives a hand-written memo by John Kingsbury describing how Teddy himself picked Frances Perkins as executive secretary of the Committee on Safety, which was launched in the aftermath of the fire. She had corresponded with him previously, and he knew about her good work from her Hull House friends like Jane Addams (who was a Republican). I’ve even seen a picture of her at a meeting at Teddy Roosevelt’s house in New York. So Frances Perkins was friends with Teddy Roosevelt before she knew Franklin or Eleanor, or at least knew them well.
I understand Perkins wanted universal health care, but had to give it up in order to succeed with social security and all her other achievements. What form did her intended health care plan take? Was it like European programs or like the limited insurance models we are too familiar with?
Kirstin, welcome to FDL, and thank you for writing this book. I now have another book to add to my to be read pile. I never thought of her as being forgotten. Nobody who had Mrs Wilcox for American History would have thought she was forgotten. I’ll echo the thoughts above, that we need a lot more like her in public service.
–Beard5–who rarely comments.
Did you all see the earlier discussion on this site about The Forgotten Man by Amity Schlaes? Her premise is that Roosevelt didn’t solve the Depression. That whole issue is a strange red herring, because Frances Perkins frequently said herself that they hadn’t solved the Great Depression. What they did was develop programs that take the edge off the worst ravages of the cyclical downturns that are part of capitalism. Unemployment insurance gives people food until they get new jobs; Social Security gives them a meagre living if their investments prove worthless and their savings dissipate. The real strength of the New Deal is today, when we have 50 million people getting Social Security and 6 million getting unemployment insurance. It’s helping stave off the Great Depression of 2009.
What kind of response did Perkins and FDR get when he first appointed her to the cabinet? (As I envision the responses of folks acting like they do today with fake horror that a WOMAN would have the audacity to think she could do a job previously held only by men)
First, Kirstin, congratulations on a splendid biography. It’s both good history and a good read. It’s fascinating that Perkins, who came from a narrow, claustrophobic small-town background, seemed to have exceptionally warm and strong friendships with people vastly different from her, such as Al Smith (who was, for my money, one of the great politicians of the 20th century) and his Tammany Hall friends who stood up for her when she was in trouble; and much later in her life, some very conservative young men at Cornell, including Paul Wolfowitz, Bloom, and Abe Shulsky. Come to think of it, she and FDR weren’t a whole lot alike. Anything to this?
Shock and horror in some circles. Union leaders were furious. AFL President William Green famously said that labor “could never be reconciled” to her nomination. (He came around pretty soon, after Frances Perkins proved how much she wanted to help labor.) But women’s organizations were thrilled, as were social progressive groups. They saw it is a big triumph of the suffrage movement, women finally getting a chance to lead.
I think those particular arguments aren’t as obnoxious as the ones that claim what FDR did made the Depression worse. Paul Krugman has dealt with that argument pretty well, for those who are interested in doing a little digging, but there are plenty of folks who still parrot that line.
and thanks for pointing out how bad Shlaes is! she is a guru to the economic hard-right and most media figures don’t know enough to rebut her. Mark Sanford is just one example of how the right is relying on Shlaes as the sole basis of terrible, shoddy arguments.
She viewed things as they really were. She saw that all people were a combination of good and bad. She found ways to help people reach for their highest aspirations. Even someone who is corrupt in many ways can in the right circumstances also do something great. FDR could be petty, vindictive and shamelessly self-promotional, but he could also be far-sighted, progessive and altruistic. He was also politically brilliant, and together they racked up a huge list of accomplishments.
What do you still not know about Frances Perkins that you wish you knew?
Some of them remind me of Holocaust deniers. Anyone who has done any real research on the economic conditions of the late 1920s and early 1930s knows how dire the financial situation was then, not just here but in many parts of the world, including Germany and Italy. Each country was desperately trying to find its own way to some semblance of normalcy. Things were so bad that fascism and communism were viewed as real and viable alternatives. Frances Perkins and FDR really, truly believed in capitalism and its restorative capabilities. They developed programs that tide people over until the good times start rolling once again. It’s so strange that some of these ideologues are pretending the Rooseveltians were opposed to capitalism. They just weren’t crazy about out-of-control greed.
Kirstin,
Can you tell us what kind of national health program Perkins wanted to enact?
I guess I wonder if she was bisexual or not. She was truly in love with her husband, but he became ill with bipolar disorder. I’m not sure whether her subsequent relationship with Mary Harriman–Averell’s sister–was platonic or romantic. It was certainly a deep connection, and seems like more than a friendship.
Interesting you mention that. I was wondering the same thing about Mary Harriman. It sounds like a model Boston marriage. (Goodness knows what Averell would have thought.) I was also curious about her relationship with the president of the Mineworkers (I’m blanking out on his name). Frances (I, like you, call her by her first name) was such an extraordinary person. I’d like to think she had some important and deep love other than in that terribly tragic marriage.
Thanks for the questions and for joining me today! I loved researching and writing the book, and very much enjoy discussing Frances Perkins. You might want to check out my website, http://www.kirstindowney.com, for more information about the book, the research and my work at the Washington Post. And thanks so much for inviting me today, Tula and Firedog!
Kirstin, welcome!
RE: Her attitude toward the press — She also preferred to work behind the scenes, did she not? She no doubt saw what a lightning rod Mrs. Roosevelt was for FDR’s foes.
Thanks for dropping by. Just sorry I arrived here so late.
Sorry I missed this. What I know of Perkins comes from Schlessinger, and he certainly agreed with your take on how important she was, as I recall. Didn’t realize she wound up in a dorm room at the end of her life. Sad, but I hope (and expect) she was fine with it, having done what she had done.